Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

"Women lead other women"

I don't believe the source cited fully supports the text "Women lead other women, but not allowed to hold certain pastoral positions" (it's also ungrammatical). The source quotes one former member as stating "As a leader, I was given women that I had to 'disciple'", but that's not really proof that that's the general picture (it might be that some women leaders "disciple" men, for all the quote tells us). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There's probably a better way to say it. There's also a timeliness issue. Under McKean, only women could disciple women and only men could disciple men. It's not clear if the discipling system still exits anymore, so it may be a moot point. Also "certain pastoral positions" is vague. I wouldn't mind taking the whole "women" sentence out. Nowa (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV: Adding summary comment to the lead

To follow the WP:NPOV, since this material appears in the article also, this comment can be added to the summary of the cult discussion in the Lead. "Others have found the church to not be a cult." Cite: https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19980901-1.2.31.11?qt=church,%20not,%20a,%20cult&q=church%20not%20a%20cult

Editaddict (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Since no one discussed this and since it is complicit with the WP:NPOV policy, I will add it to the article. Editaddict (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality and verifiability[edit]

Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

•    Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources

•    Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it

•     Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance

Editaddict (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You have NO consensus for your edits, I strongly suggest you revert yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how my simple suggestion does not follow the WP:NPOV policy to create neutrality and balance. My understanding is that the WP policy is what we follow and not just people's opinions. Editaddict (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, your conflict of interest means you should avoid editing the article directly and instead post edit requests here and gain consensus for any proposed changes. I oppose this addition because the source doesn't really support the claim that "Others have found the church to not be a cult"; all it says is that the Court of Appeal in Singapore overturned a High Court ruling that newspapers that had called the Central Christian Church a cult had not defamed it. We should perhaps add something to that effect to the Court cases and lawsuits section of the article, but the statement you've added isn't supported and doesn't belong in the lede. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the article doesn't establish that the Central Christian Church was affiliated with the International Churches of Christ, so that would need to be established with a good source. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It is on their website https://centralchristianchurch.sg/

Is that a good enough source? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the website doesn't state that the church was affiliated with the International Churches of Christ at the time of the court case in 1998. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread. The headline reads: "The Appeals Court has ruled that the two newspapers defamed the Central Christian Church by labelling it a 'cult." Please give a good reason this addition to the lead does not follow the WP:NPOV "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance." Just saying it does not belong there does not make it so. Editaddict (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance does not say that, it says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." which is a very different statement Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So there are accusations or the church being a cult, then there are articles where the churches of Christ, the 1,6million member body from where the ICOC came, where the representatives of the COC apologized for using the word “cult” to describe the ICOC https://christianchronicle.org/icoc-mainline-leaders-meet-at-abilene-christian-1/ And there is a law case where an expert testified: “Church not a cult, says expert witness Tan Ooi Boon Central Christian Church hearings By Testifies that its practices were not 'strange, unnatural or harmful' AN EXPERT on religious studies yesterday said that the Central Christian Church here was not a cult because Us practices were "neither strange, unnatural or …” https://web.archive.org/web/20130928102343/http:/newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/SearchResults.aspx?keyword=central%20christian%20church%20hearings. And @CordlessLarry you believe the only Reliable sources are the ones accusing the church of being a “cult”? Tell me you are not serious? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not about believing or not believing the sources; it's about accurately reporting what they say. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So why are you excluding these sources and what they are saying from your editing in the LEAD and elsewhere? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The lede should summarise the main content of the article, so the material shouldn't simply be added there when it's not in the article. I don't oppose its inclusion in the body article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It was already in the body of the article, unless you removed it over the past 6 months.

If no-one objects, I am going to remove the contested section and we can replace it once we have consensus here on the Talk page JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The information is already in the article. It is how I found it. You have yet to answer the question "How is including it in the lead summary not following the WP:POV? Your opinions are not the bar for inclusion. Editaddict (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies - there are a couple of sentences on it. A single defamation case in Singapore (and we still don't have a source stating that the church was part of ICOC) doesn't merit inclusion in the lede to my mind. Per WP:LEDE, the lede "is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". This isn't particularly important content. There's also the problem that "Others have found the church to not be a cult" isn't really supported by the source - it's original research to make that claim based on a single primary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This explanation is very confusing. Perhaps it is because you misread and misremembered the article twice now. How does including this statement and reference to the Singapore case and the cult expert not fit this WP policy: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Editaddict (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean I've misread the source or the Wikipedia article? I made a mistake in stating that the material wasn't covered in the body of the article, but I don't see where I've misrepresented the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, what you are stating is the WP:NPOV principle I am trying to follow to achieve a neutral point of view by presenting balance. It is simply a small addition that summarizes content that is already in the article and refers to a reputable disinterested source. Please show how this addition violates this principle. Editaddict (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On the “original research” point @[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry] is making, he is right. On the RS and NPOV issue, @Editaddict you raise a valid point, why is the Singapore court case which is written about in the Strait Times (a Singapore newspaper) being ignored? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not being ignored - it gets two sentences at the start of the court cases section. I'm happy to discuss whether that's the appropriate weight to give the case (I think it probably is), but first you need to demonstrate that with secondary sources that the Singapore church involved in the case is indeed "a part of the ICOC family of churches", with suitable secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

So firstly it is on their own website that they are an ICOC church (I have given the reference above already). 2ndly in the ICOCHistory website the court case and the results are covered in detail https://icochistory.org/download/la-story-courage-under-fire/?wpdmdl=754&refresh=659b9831268ab1704695857 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Their website is a primary source and it doesn't establish that they were an ICOC church at the time of the court cases. The PDF you just linked is also a primary source (written by the ICOC's General Counsel); it does at least establish the connection, but it would be better to have a secondary source. I'm going to open an RfC on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

3rdly, the court case is discussed in the Singapore newspaper “The Strait Times” https://web.archive.org/web/20130928102343/http:/newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/SearchResults.aspx?keyword=central%20christian%20church%20hearings JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Those would be better sources, but do they mention ICOC? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cordless Larry (talk) The paragraph in question in the Lead appears to fail Wikipedia Policies in a number of key aspects. For the following reasons, the paragraph should be removed in its entirety or moved to be merged with the Court Cases and Lawsuits section of the article. According to WP:LEAD, "[T]he lead . . .should . . . establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (from a neutral point of view). The context and notability of allegations of the church as a cult have not been established by referencing the "Former members" through a mere citation to a Rolling Stone article or the "view" of Janja Lalich, an individual identified as an expert on cults and coercion, who states that the church has "some of the hallmarks of a cult." The relative number of former members who are making cult allegations to the current members, former members or those from the general population who are not is not ascertainable by these general statements of opinion and do not "establish context" or “explain why the topic is notable” for the allegations that the church is a cult. To position in the Lead the viewpoint of what appears to be a minority is inconsistent with WP:UNDUE that states, "[g]enerally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." --Meta Voyager (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If you read WP:UNDUE, you'll notice that it starts "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" - which is different to being in proportion to the number of former members making the allegations, as you seem to be suggesting. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:UNDUE, "[U]ndue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to . . . prominence of placement." The church article contains nearly forty paragraphs about its origin, historical development, various governance arrangements, and its beliefs and practices that take up many pages and which are supported by nearly eighty credible source citations, while the section on Court Cases and Lawsuits, that includes a reference to lawsuits and a cult allegation, is a mere two paragraphs at the end of the article with mostly news media sourcing. To attribute one of three paragraphs in the Lead on the topic of cult allegations and lawsuits that are thinly sourced is out of proportion with the overall substance of the article and its most important points. Meta Voyager (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, though much of the article content is based on primary sources and quite a lot of it needs to be removed if secondary sources can't be found. At least the lawsuits and cult allegations material is based on good, secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The last two replies in this thread appear to be an effort to divert from the primary policy discussion about what is appropriate for the Lead and, instead, turn the discussion to a general statement about neutral point of view and the distinction between primary and secondary sourcing in the body of the article. In my view, the overarching concern about the reference to opinions on the cult status of the church in the third paragraph of the Lead is that these opinions don’t belong in the Lead at all according to WP:LEAD. The Lead should “establish context” and “explain why the topic is notable.” The “former members” reference in the Lead accomplishes neither.  It is sourced from a Rolling Stone article that ties the cult allegation to two lawsuits in Los Angeles County Court brought by a total of 7 individuals. In contrast, the church is described elsewhere in this Wiki article as having more than 100,000 adherents and in the Wiki article on the Restoration Movement as a church having origins in the American Restoration Movement and Churches of Christ in the United States that reach back to the 19^th century.  The WP:UNDUE policies on “prominence of placement” further support why the opinions of a limited number of former members on the topic of cult status do not belong in the Lead.  According to recent reporting by the church, there are more than 700 church congregations associated with the International Churches of Christ, mostly outside the USA. Focusing on 2 cases in a Los Angeles, California court in the USA seems out of place. I am aware of the 2 subsequent cases filed in Los Angeles and my point remains the same. In all sincerity, I don’t find this issue to be a close call and that the third paragraph in the Lead should be removed; however, I’m interested in policy-based arguments that would suggest otherwise.  Can we return in this thread to a discussion of the key policies about the Lead an how they apply to the paragraph in question? Meta Voyager (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You're quoting WP:LEDE selectively, leaving out the bit that says it should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". The cult allegations aren't just made in the Rolling Stone article in relation to the lawsuits but are a common feature of coverage of the church in secondary sources. For some further examples, see this ("International Churches of Christ...is largely seen as a cult"), this ("a reputed cult, the International Church of Christ") and this ("Imagine now, this very same healing community that most members describe as an awesome family portrayed as a 'dangerous cult'. Who makes such claims about this healing group? Ex-members, former leaders, anti-cult groups, and many university officials who have banned the group from campuses because of their 'deceptive recruiting techniques' and authoritarian structure"). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra articles. The "former members" reference is also used to support an accusation of the church "covering up sexual abuse of children" and includes citations to single news articles in The Guardian and Los Angeles Times. The nature of the cover up accusations by former members is alarming and troubling, but, standing alone, does not make the reference sufficient to justify inclusion in the Lead. The paragraph in question also states that "[a]s of August 2023, some US branches of the church were the subject of multiple lawsuits." These references appear to be an effort to justify the inclusion of the paragraph as a "prominent controversy" WP:LEAD. However, the reference to a controversy related to the church is already acknowledged in the prior paragraph in the Lead and does not need to be repeated in another paragraph. A simple cross-reference to the Court Cases and Lawsuits section in the body of the article would be a sufficient way to alert the reader to controversy involving the church. Further and significantly, as of August, 2023 there were in fact no individual International Church of Christ congregations named in the cited lawsuits - only one congregation from the International Christian Church, a distinct and different church group that is recognized more appropriately in a separate Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_McKean#International_Christian_Church. This date stamped reference to lawsuits and the conflation of matters involving the International Churches of Christ and those of the International Christian Church are inaccuracies and represent original research that is prohibited by WP:OR as "a synthesis of published materials that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Meta Voyager (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The reference to "multiple lawsuits" that are being reported in the news media as of a recent date also runs up against WP:RECENTISM "where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." The referenced lawsuits in state court are reported to be preceded by cases that the plaintiffs withdrew from federal court and refiled. Who can say at this early stage of litigation whether the current lawsuits will also be withdrawn or significantly amended by the plaintiffs? While a reference to pending court cases might be appropriate in another section of the article, it carries the characteristics of "breaking news" that are addressed in WP:NOTNEWS, “. . . breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.” This description of pending court cases doesn't represent an enduring description of the subject matter in the International Churches of Christ article and is not appropriate for a prominent placement in the Lead. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Singapore court case

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to briefly include the court ruling as well as the connection with the ICOC in the article, but not in the lede. Editors largely agreed that the case has received sufficient coverage for inclusion in the article, but that the weight of coverage didn't establish it was WP:DUE for the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

---

At International Churches of Christ#Court cases and lawsuits, the article currently states: The Central Christian Church in Singapore, a part of the ICOC family of churches, won a court case (SINGAPORE HIGH COURT – SUIT NOs 846 and 848 of 1992 Judges LAI KEW CHAI J Date 29 August 1994 Citation [1995] 1 SLR 115) in which the judge ruled against a newspaper that had accused the Church of being a cult. An expert on religious studies testified that the Central Christian Church's practices were "neither strange, unnatural or harmful." The link between the Central Christian Church and the ICOC is supported by this primary source, provided by JamieBrown2011 in the discussion above.

The questions for the RfC are (a) whether the sourcing (including the primary source linking the Singapore church to the ICOC) is strong enough for this to be included and if so, (b) what the appropriate weight is to give this case and (c) whether it should be added to the article lede. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

As a first-time editor to this page, it seems that the question of whether to include the Singapore news article to provide balance for the allegations of the church being a “cult” is a settled issue under principles of WP:NPOV as the reference and inclusion of the Singapore Court case already exists under the Court Cases and Lawsuits section in the body of the article.  However, this discussion assumes that the third paragraph is appropriate for the Lead. I don’t think it is and have offered my reasons in NPOV: Adding summary comment to the lead. Talk:International Churches of Christ#NPOV: Adding summary comment to the lead Meta Voyager (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the question here only about the link between the two churches? Because the mention of the supreme court cases is based on Straits Times and seems pretty legitimate. I think it is strong enough for it to be included in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There's more than one question, Elmmapleoakpine (see a, b and c above). It's about whether the sourcing is strong enough to establish the link between the church in the Singapore case and the ICOC to include it in the ICOC article (the Straits Times source is good on the case but doesn't mention the ICOC), what weight to give it if it is included, and whether it also belongs in the article lede. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In terms of the link to the ICOC, it is stated on their website that they are an ICOC church (scroll to the bottom) https://centralchristianchurch.sg/

It is also stated on the ICOChistory website that the Central Christian Church in Singapore is part of the ICOC and at the time of the lawsuit https://icochistory.org/download/la-story-courage-under-fire/?wpdmdl=754&refresh=659b9831268ab1704695857. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

For reasons I already explained, the first of those sources isn't very helpful. I linked to the second one in the RfC text. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this clear, you are confused/unsure as to whether the Central Christian Church is part of the ICOC. Yet it was started by the ICOC in 1988, and to this day remains in the ICOC https://centralchristianchurch.sg/our-history/ . Add to that, the lawsuit was thoroughly documented in the www.icochistory.org website and on the CCC’s own website https://centralchristianchurch.sg/our-legal-victory/. I am really unsure as to why you are confused. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not confused, no. I believe that the church is part of the ICOC. That doesn't mean we don't need a reliable source for the purposes of WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF provides this, does it not? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition, as you can see in the discussion above, the question of following WP:NPOV has never been answered by those not wanting to add the link to the lede.

How does including the Singapore link (that is already in the article) not fit the WP:NPOV policy?

Neutrality and verifiability[edit]

Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

•    Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources

•    Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it

•     Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance

Editaddict (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• My own view is that the material belongs in the article, though I'd prefer a properly secondary source for the link between the churches. WP:WEIGHT requires us to give due weight to the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources. The Singapore case largely received local attention, whereas the more recent lawsuits have been covered by international media. The view of the expert cited in the Singapore source is just that - the view of a single expert - whereas there are multiple sources describing the ICOC as a cult. For those reasons, I don't think we should give this more than a couple of sentences in the article, and I don't think it belongs in the lede. Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarise the most important aspects of the article, and this isn't one of those in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I hear what you are saying but there still is no answer to how including a simple statement with links in the lede does not follow this WP:NPOV policy. Please answer specifically each of these policies in relation to the simple statement to include in the lede.

  Neutrality and verifiability[edit]

  Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

  •    Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources

  •    Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it

  •     Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance

  Editaddict (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a request for comment seeking input from the Wikipedia community, not a Q&A session with me. I've expressed my view and will now leave it to others to express theirs. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the problematic section that is under dispute, is you inserting a paragraph in the LEAD where you use the term “cult” 3x in 3 sentences and mention upcoming court cases 2x’s, I think WP:UNDUE would tell us to have that reduced to maybe 1 mention, because you are giving undue WEIGHT to the negative. Then by including those claims in the LEAD, and resisting including the court case where the church demonstrated and won, that they are not a cult (remember the other court cases you mention have not even happened yet) NPOV would say “Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance”. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Remove entirely: I would suggest a brief review of WP:LAWRS, which at least introduces some of why nothing in this paragraph is usable. Most egregiously, what an expert witness says in court is fundamentally different to what we can attribute to an expert RS in a WP article. It's a self-published source from an academic, which can only be used in very cautious circumstances -- furthermore, since the "publishing" was a court transcript, it's arguable that tbis is even WP:SPS. After that is the newspaper article on the court ruling -- are we citing it because it makes some useful statement or summary (or even analysis) of the ruling? If not. then we are effectively making an internal citation to the ruling itself, a primary source. Does the ruling itself say definitively that ICOC has proven misconduct or not? No, the ruling is about the misconduct of a newspaper. This serves a great example of how to misuse sources on issues of law. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that WP:LAWRS, but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding. The source is not a court transcript but a WP:RS The Strait Times, a well respected Singapore newspaper. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The referenced Singapore court case is a relevant example of WP:NPOV in practice as it represents an official court proceeding where the subject matter of whether an ICOC church was a cult was litigated at two levels of the Singapore court system.  The case was based on a claim that the church was defamed by The New Paper, a newspaper based in Singapore and Lianhe Wanbao, a Chinese evening daily at the time, but now merged with Shin Min Daily News. The lower court ruled that the newspapers’ declarations of the church as a cult did not constitute defamation and the higher court reversed the lower court’s decision. The Appeals Court concluded in its court opinion that the newspapers’ “fact” claim about the church being a cult was in error and awarded damages on the basis that the church was defamed. The history of the case itself makes clear that there are two viewpoints on the question of the church’s “cult” status. Another of the relevant values of the article is that the defendants, The New Paper and Lianhe Wanbao, and The Straits Times, the publisher of the article, were all owned at the time by the same parent company, Singapore Press Holdings, now known as SPH Media. The referenced Straits Times article carries in its headline, “The Appeals Court has ruled that two newspapers defamed the Central Christian Church by labelling it a ‘cult’“ and serves as an admission by a related party that two of its sister newspapers were found in error. Further, the use of the court case and the article that reports upon it are not contrary to the essay on the use of law sources found in WP:LAWRS.  The essay acknowledges that court opinions are among the types of “law” references that are acceptable as Wikipedia sources; however, they should be used carefully. In this thread, there may be a need to revise the language of the disputed paragraph, but, in my view, there is value in adding the court case reference and related Straits Times article as sources for a statement that there are opposing views to the allegation that the church is a cult. These sources provide balance and adhere to WP:NPOV. I disagree with the assertion of another editor to “remove entirely” and would instead invite the author of the paragraph to consider revisions with these thoughts in mind. Meta Voyager (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but you still seem to not understand. The court is not ruling on whether or not ICOC is a cult. Editors cannot interpret anything in primary sources of law or court rulings beyond its plain text (not how they apply, not what they imply -- same goes with any WP:Primary source). A newspaper is not a RS on legal interpretation unless they have a specialist correspondent or expert commentator.

  Furthermore, even if somewhere in the ruling the judge said in plain text "ICOC is definitely 100% a cult", that's WP:Undue because the case wasn't deciding that matter and the judge cannot make that expert opinion. (There may also be zero review or appeal to such a statement.)

  RS are not a binary. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your very helpful comments further explaining the Wikipedia policy on WP:LAWRS. I understand better the concern and caution about referencing legal topics or court documents in a newspaper or when non-legal experts attempt to draw conclusions about them. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  This reference on the outcome of the appeal should be helpful. <ref name="Straights Times2">{{cite web |last=Jin |first=Lim Seng |date=September 1, 1998 |title=Church wins appeal in libel case |url=https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19980901-1.2.31.11 |publisher=The Straights Times |page=26}}</ref> Nowa (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've called for a close of this RfC at WP:CR. TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RfC

TarnishedPath, you've removed a sentence from the lede, citing this RfC close, but the sentence wasn't about the Singapore case. Has there been a mix-up? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, my apologies. I'm half dead from lack of sleep after being woken up by a 21 month old before I got a full night's sleep. I've reverted myself. TarnishedPath^talk 07:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that - and thanks! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In the hypothetical situation described in the RfC statement, there is a rough consensus that editors should prefer independent, reliable sources in describing the beliefs of a religious organization per WP:BESTSOURCE. However, nobody suggested outright banning the use of about self sourcing, and several editors pointed out that such sourcing can be used, for example, to substantiate non-controversial doctrinal points. Application of these principles to this article's belief section is outside the scope of this RfC; that is left to further discussion and the normal course of editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia articles about religious organizations often contain a “beliefs” section that describes the beliefs and practices of the organization and its members. Is About Self sourcing on the organization’s beliefs or practices acceptable as Reliable Sourcing when the information is derived directly from the religious organization or published by an employee or member of the organization irrespective of whether secondary sourcing is available? This RfC assumes that all other Wikipedia editing policies are observed. Meta Voyager (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• No, we should rely on independent, secondary sources as much as possible for this. Some non-independent sourcing might be acceptable here, but per WP:ABOUTSELF, only when the claims concerned are uncontroversial - and given how much controversy surrounds the ICOC and its practices, I'd suggest that not much is uncontroversial here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• If it was a staightforward uncontroversial enclyclopedic summary of their beliefs, IMO yes. But for what I see in the article, no because it is not those things. It is prose wordsmith-ed with all of their objectives in mind. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW by "uncontroversial" I meant as a statement of their beliefs. For example, it is uncontroversial that the flat earth society professes that the earth is flat, even if the belief is controversial.North8000 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@North8000I agree with you about making this section a "straightforward uncontroversial encyclopedic summary of their beliefs". Could you point out what you find as "prose wordsmith-ed?" That should help out with making this section more fitting. XZealous (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

My 14:31, 17 April 2024 post below is a first attempt at reflecting on that. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• For most major religions, this should be fine, but I can think of several high control organisations where what is outwardly claimed about the religion's beliefs doesn't neccesarily match all that well with what is claimed internally, and where external sources might be necessary to get a good perspective, think scientology.--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Noting that the ICOC is not a prominent enough organization to generate many secondary sources on their beliefs, do you think it is necessary to have these sources as well?

  Also, would an outside perspective of beliefs fit within the "Beliefs" section, or would that garner a whole other section on outside views on the ICOC? There has to be some discrepancy between an internal statement and an outside source's experience of the application of those statements.

  Maybe you can put here on the talk page if you find a big discrepancy between the internal and external statements of belief? XZealous (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the organisation isn't prominent enough to generate coverage when there's an entire scholarly book about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Since this came up again (I was even tagged!) I see the need to clarify my position: If a fact referenced to WP:ABOUTSELF-sources is being contested, it is almost always going to end up having to be supported by secondary sources, and secondary sources are always preferable. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but my vote shouldn't be used to defend the use of WP:ABOUTSSELF sources when that use is contested. by "this should be fine, but", in this case, I meant "It's better not to", rather than "Please do". I also think the (attempt at?) self-closure below was in very poor form. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Very much agree with what North8000 has said, for uncontroversial statements it should be fine. However for controversial groups whose believes and practices may not match what they profess publicly such statements may go against points 1 (unduly self-serving) and 4 (reasonable doubt) of WP:ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  It might be helpful to this RFC to explain what is deemed as "controversial" in the beliefs section? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the challenges in editing this article has been that there is very little recent RS published about the ICOC since the early 2000s. This is when its founder resigned/was ousted and they underwent a major reorganization. That reorganization included a very public (although not very specific) renunciation by its leadership of the organization being "too judgmental". So the dilemma, as I see it, is if the article's beliefs section relies primarily on RS, it will be out-of-date, since most RS was generated at a time when the ICOC was more controversial than it is today. If, on the other hand, we want to make the beliefs section current, then there is very little RS available and we have to rely on primary sources with all of the difficulties associated with that. Any thoughts on how to resolve this dilemma? Are there other precedents where the issue of article currency vs the availability of RS was addressed? Nowa (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Great point @Nowa, there are some articles written at the Christian Chronicle about those changes and also at Disciples Today. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the Christian Chronicle a newsletter/newspaper/news source published by the ICOC? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:98FA:4FF1:C7BD:BCE7 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments received thus far. The origin of this RfC is to improve the article by making thoughtful edits that conform to Wikipedia policies. As further context, for the past 8 months this article has been closely monitored and my attempts to edit have been tightly controlled by the suggestion that I have a conflict of interest as a lay member of the church. I have directly expressed my disagreement on this position with the responsible administrator but have chosen in good faith to confine my suggested edits to the Talk page and use the tools afforded by Wikipedia policy to reach consensus. There is a Statement of Shared Beliefs contained within a self-published Plan For United Cooperation dated March 11, 2006 that is a representation of the belief system of several hundred church congregations who have chosen to participate. In my view, it is non-controversial and similar to other statements of faith appearing in articles for other religious organizations (e.g., Catechism of the Catholic Church). My hope is that this RfC will provide consensus on the appropriateness of making a change of this type (i.e., About Self sourcing) to the article’s belief section. It appears the consensus so far is represented by North8000’s opinion that “a straightforward uncontroversial encyclopedic summary of their beliefs” is permitted. If this consensus holds, the issue of whether the Statement of Shared Beliefs is controversial will have an appropriate airing on the Talk page, prior to posting. Meta Voyager (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That selective quote from North8000's comment makes it sound like they approve of the current state of the section, which I don't believe is the case from reading the full comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think @Meta Voyager is trying to point out that the consensus is that if the section were to be "a straightforward uncontroversial encyclopedic summary of their beliefs", then the sources should be fine.

It seems like there would be agreement to use these sources if the Belief section were to be simplified in its writing to avoid being "wordsmith-ed." XZealous (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not taken the deep dive to learn enough to say too much. But to make just a quick reading of the quoted portion, it is not very informative for such a large amount words. 95% of it is a just statement of the of the core points of all of the "Primacy of the Bible" churches and organizations with perhaps billions of members. The other 5% is "every member's participation in the Great Commission to Seek and save what was lost" which, by using undefined internal jargon for it's core statement, does not inform the reader at all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Expanding on my last point, whenever somebody uses undefined jargon which they control the definition of to "explain" something, e.g. "every member's participation in the Great Commission to Seek and save what was lost" I consider it to be problematic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The other "95%" is covered in the other text in that section. I might boldly zap that whole quote section just to try to help here and request that if anybody disagrees to please revert me. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for these clarifications on the sections that have been "wordsmithed." My view, as stated elsewhere on the Talk page, is that there are many sections of the article that would benefit from being rewritten and one of the intentions of this RfC is to better understand how to do so consistent with WP editing policies.. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just in case my use of the word "wordsmithing" might have been an overreach, I didn't mean it in a negative or manipulative sense. Just that the wording is crafted to serve all of the objectives and constraints of the writers in whatever context they wrote it. Which is different that trying to give a third party enclyclopedic description. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article, but the RFC question makes me wonder whether editors are remembering that Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.

On the general subject, though, I'm surprised that this question is being asked. Anyone with even a small amount of experience should already know that an encyclopedia article about a religious organization will always outline the organization's beliefs (WP:BALASP policy) and that editors should use the WP:BESTSOURCES available to them. Therefore, if the best sources about the org's religious beliefs are from the org, then use them. And if the best sources are not from the org, then use those. This is not rocket science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the further clarification on the use of secondary sourcing that is not independent. I agree with this assessment and your acknowledgement that the best available source on a religious organization's beliefs is often times the organization itself. Meta Voyager (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

On the wording of the RfC, if it was me posting it, I'd have asked about the suitability of non-independent sources for the beliefs section of this specific article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @WhatamIdoing it makes perfect sense what you are saying, especially the point on secondary sources not always being independent or the best. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

We do generally discourage editors from interpreting the Bible or other religious texts themselves (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion). A primary source like the organization's website is a safer choice for editors than a primary source like the Bible itself. So primary sources aren't bad, and may sometimes even be best, but they're not always preferred, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, your input is clear and very helpful 👍 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Since it might be unclear (including what I said about the quote) I agree with what WhatamIdoing said. And they did not respond for the particulars here, they just said that there is no reason to preclude such a source, and that it often may be the best source. What's there now (after I took the quote out) IMO has the appearance of OK, with the caveat that I'm not deep in / knowledgeable enough on the topic/sources to evaluate more deeply than that. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

When I do a simple google search the search will return hundreds of articles that call this organization a cult. How can I trust that what the ICOC says happens and believes is really what is happening in the ICOC? Maybe the ICOC is lying? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:98FA:4FF1:C7BD:BCE7 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• No (Summoned by bot) we should prefer secondary WP:RS, with a strong preference for academic sources from subject matter experts. WP:ABOUTSELF should only be utilised when there are gaps and then care should be taken to not present the information from ABOUTSELF sources as fact, only as self-attributed claims. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you here about the importance of secondary WP:RS The belief section should use WP:ABOUTSELF for the self attributed claims of its own beliefs. I am not sure that WP:ABOUTSELF "should only be utilised when there are gaps." That statement is not within the policy confine of WP:ABOUTSELF. Noting that this section is a statement of ICOC beliefs as stated by the ICOC themselves, it falls within all guidelines to use WP:ABOUTSELF for this section.

  There is also a great discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC concerning WP:ABOUTSELF XZealous (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  My statement "should only be utilised when there are gaps" is to say that secondary WP:RS, especially from academic sources in which the author is a subject matter expert (if available), are vastly superior than WP:ABOUTSELF. WP:ABOUTSELF are obviously primary sources and are almost universally are self-serving. I don't think it's controversial to state that reliable secondary sources are preferable to primary sources which have a tendency towards being self-serving. To me the statement that WP:ABOUTSELF sources "should only be utilised when there are gaps" follows. We should always prefer to best sources. TarnishedPath^talk 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• This RfC has received open comment and discussion for more than 10 days and appears to have achieved a majority view on acceptable uses of About Self sourcing on the beliefs section of a religious organization's article under certain circumstances. To avoid COI concerns and in light of the backlog on Wikipedia Closure requests, I request that @WhatamIdoing, as an editor uninvolved with the article, consider writing a brief closing summary of the discussion on this RfC (ideally with a determination of consensus), after which I intend to formally end the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meta Voyager (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  An editor who has contributed to the discussion is involved, so shouldn't be the one to close it and summarise the consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Objection noted. Since closing summaries are not required, I’ll proceed with ending the discussion. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes. In case my thanking of disinterested editors for their input hasn't made my position clear. I am supportive of using WP:ABOUTSELF as a reliable source, as was mentioned by @Horse Eyes Back on the Reliable Sources Board over here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Reliability and independence of sources for International Churches of Christ JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, there are really two questions, and this discussion has really been about #1:

1. Prohibit vs. do not prohibit using self as a source
2. Decide that what's there is what will be in the article.

IMO folks have mostly decided "do not prohibit" on #1, but that should not be interpreted as "locking in" what is currently in there. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Just having a look at the lede and there seems to be some statements which are presented as fact which are supported by WP:ABOUTSELF references. I find this problematic. In fact that there is anything supported by WP:ABOUTSELF in the lede I think is WP:UNDUE. Anything supported by WP:ABOUTSELF should be in a beliefs section. Glaring example from the second paragraph in the lede: "They are structured with the intent to avoid two extremes: "overly centralised authority" on the one side and "disconnected autonomy" on the other side" which is completely supported by two references from ICOC's website. That is a statement of fact, not a statement of belief and it contradicts statements in the first paragraph of the lede that ICOC is "religiously conservative and racially integrated" which is supported by a reliable source being the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Further there are statements about the size of the congregations in the second paragraph which are supported by sources which are not independent. TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Number of churches and countries needs secondary sourcing

In several places there is a statement of the number of churches and the number of countries that they have churches in, sourced only to themselves. This really really needs secondary sourcing, even if only to place their claims in the context of an independent review. Not only for the usual reasons (e.g what do they count as a "member", some orgs inflate numbers by counting anyone they even had contact with as a member) but their general lack of physical churches leaves room for definition of a "church" (and thus also "country with a church") different than the common meaning of a church. For example, counting two people who meet at someone's house a "church" and thus also as a country where they have a church. This is different that just self-sourcing things like beliefs, because it is prima facie an objective fact, and one very relevant for a reader wanting to learn about the church. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'd say that such claims are unduly self-serving and therefore fail WP:ABOUTSELF. In such places where inadequately supported claims about the numbers of churches or members are made, I'd say they should be tagged as better source needed and if a secondary sources aren't provided within a couple of weeks then each claim which isn't adequately supported should be removed. TarnishedPath^talk 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Or at least retained with heavy attribution including noting that they are based on their definitions/interpretations of terms like "church". North8000 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I could see how the definition of Church could be different. What do you suggest to help clear this up for the article? XZealous (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It's also unclear how these sources define "nations", which is the wording used in the article. Would England, Wales, etc. be counted as separate nations here, or are they being treated as one state? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is easy to verify. Every church is listed in the country, state and city where it is located with the website, social media account and contact number of the church leader or administrator right here JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just tagged the number of countries as requiring a better source as the current source is a source from the church. The current source doesn't meet the requirements for using WP:ABOUTSELF sources insofar as it is unduly self-serving. I've already tagged the number of members a week ago. I'm going to suggest that if secondary sources aren't located within two weeks to support these claims, then they will need to be re-evaluated and potentially removed. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this is "unduly self-serving." Could you clarify your thoughts on this? It would be "unduly" if an ICOC source were to claim something outlandish, or soley promotional; i.e "The ICOC is the greatest Church...". A statement like that or similar would be clrealt unduly self serving.

The sources used seem to be aiming to accurately label where Churches are, numbers of members ect.. The aim seems more factually centeted than "unduly self serving" to me. XZealous (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Claims about membership and number of stores/centres for any organisation are often a PR exercise to some extent. Simply put, in the absence of secondary reliable sources we have no metric to say the claims aren't outlandish, or solely promotional. TarnishedPath^talk 23:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You really have a warped view of the church. Maybe you should excuse yourself from editing until you can edit with NPOV in mind. The locations and membership numbers are publicly posted for anyone to see. Don’t you think if any of these claims were “outlandish” or “promotional” as you claim there would be an outcry. Without any sources bringing into question these numbers, we have no reason to doubt them. How about we function like any normal human on the planet with “innocent until proven guilty” as a guide. Sound reasonable? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I've got a better idea, how about you drop the personal attacks and take your own advise when you think about making claims about other people's minds.

In the meantime, until those claims are backed up by verifiable reliable sources, they're in question. TarnishedPath^talk 07:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between a personal attack and calling someone to edit according to Wikipedia policies. There is nothing personal about highlighting a lack of NPOV editing. Let me be clear, that is what I am requesting you adhere to. Also, it is good to see we are reaching a reasonable solution on this topic as mentioned by North8000 and XZealous down below. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It is entirely a personal attach when claim someone is not editing from a NPOV and you have provided no evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 04:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear to me how I'd go about using that page to determine how they're defining a "nation". What does it tell us about whether they count the four nations of the UK as one or four, for instance? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up @North8000. Would an in line citation or something similar be good here? It would at least let the reader know that these numbers are according to the ICOC?

I.e "according to the ICOC there are Churches in x countries." XZealous (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It's very difficult to know what congregations are a part of the International Churches of Christ. I was passing by a Christian church in Japan during the summer. I thought it was a regular Christian church. It turns out the church was part of the International Churches of Christ. No where on the outside of the building or in the inside of the building was I informed that the church is part of the International Churches of Christ. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:1D37:6886:D747:4B9B (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Disciples Today is a very hard website to reach. It times out a lot. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:1D37:6886:D747:4B9B (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

(responding to XZealous) IMO the first thing is to find their wording regarding that statement. Which so far I have not been able to find. If we find it then my thought is to put that statement in with full attribution, as you described. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a great start! XZealous (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you know (or does somebody know) where their statement regarding that is? North8000 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

There is another issue here with self sourcing. Disciples Today may not use the term "member" in a way that is commonly understood. For example, I did a spot check on their finder map. They provide links to "member" church web sites. I checked four in Florida and none of them self identify as being members of ICOC. Here are the web links that I checked: Crossway Church in Tallahassee, Coastal Church in Ormond Beach,Anchor Point in Tampa, and One Miami in Miami. I'm not saying these churches aren't members, or that Disciples Today is making claims to member churches that don't see themselves as members. What I am suggesting, however, is that being a "member" of the ICOC is not at all well defined and in light of that, perhaps we should leave member numbers out. Nowa (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Nowa those are great questions, here is a description, with an explainer video, of how the ICOC churches are organised . What determines an ICOC church and the list of churches that have signed the Plan for united co-operation. So actually being a member of the ICOC is very clearly defined. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. It seems to me that individuals join congregations and congregations join the ICOC. Is that a fair statement? Nowa (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 your church seems very complicated. Why would someone want to be a member of your church? Why would someone want to join your church? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:B4F3:EE80:404C:3BC2 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

How do people join your church? Or does it have to be whole congregations? I looked through the links provided. It's all very confusing to me. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:B4F3:EE80:404C:3BC2 (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's all good info. IMO the end result of this is going to be to add "According to ICOC...." type attribution to those statements. But if we want to take a deeper dive on the question here, the core question here is: "Exactly what criteria for "church" and "nation" were used for making this statement: "The ICOC, or International Churches of Christ, is a family of congregations spread across 147 nations of the world. We are made up of over 700 churches" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the list of churches that have signed the co-operation agreement (link 5 below) each church is listed by city and by nation. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's where we get into interpretation. Does the "cooperation agreement" say that the signer considers themselves to be an ICOC church? Or just that they agreed to co-operate in some fashion. Similarly the material at "5" says that it is based on the 2023 survey but doesn't say what the survey questions were or how that interpret "is an ICOC church" from them. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to use statements like "According to the ICOC ..." then anything coming after those statements probably shouldn't be in he lede or the infobox. We should stick to independent reliable sources for any claims which find there way into the lede/infobox. TarnishedPath^talk 04:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so.

First of all, if we find Wikipedia:Independent sources that give numbers, where do you think those numbers came from? Newspaper reporters are not going to drive around town to count up the number of buildings that have this group's name on a sign. They're going to get those numbers from the same place that we are getting those numbers.

For example, Rolling Stone says "Today, plaintiffs say the ICOC has more than 120,000 members across 144 nations". Where did Rolling Stone get the numbers? From the plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits. Where did the plaintiffs in the lawsuit get those numbers? Probably from the ICOC itself.

The Guardian describes it as a "Los Angeles-based organization with about 118,000 congregants". Where did they get those numbers? It wasn't by doing independent research; they probably got the numbers from the ICOC.

If all you want is the cosmetic effect of citing a different source, then there's two for you, and you could go swap them in. But don't fool yourself into thinking that there is a source that calculated these numbers themselves. They're just repeating what they found on the same webpage that we're currently citing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I looked at a few other pages in regard to this same issue. Secondary sources have almost no option but to get this info from the primary source. In this case, noting that there are mentions of similar numbers in a few secondary sources that match the primary source, I do not see an issue here. This also shows that the primary source is probably not intentionally inflating numbers. XZealous (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Then use the reliable secondary source. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)